12 Mar 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Lord Justice Leveson has said he is not giving his “endorsement, let alone agreement” to a proposed reformed setup of the Press Complaints Commission, adding that and that a new package will be “subjected to forensic analysis”.
“My mind remains open to all options,” Leveson said in his opening remarks at this morning’s Inquiry session, responding to last week’s disbanding of the current PCC, and its chair Lord Hunt’s subsequent draft proposal for a new body “with teeth”.
“To say that the PCC was never a regulator (…) only underlines the concern that the public have been misled about what it could do,” Leveson said, raising a number of questions for the as yet unnamed new body. He took issue with the five-year rolling contract endorsed by Lord Hunt, questioning if it was “sufficient to deal with the fundamental problem of industry acceptance.”
“The threat of what I might recommend may well encourage to sign up those who (…) do not consider that the PCC worked for them, but that simply potentially puts the problem off for five years,” Leveson said. He added that “previous crises have concerned adequacy of regulation and there was no problem of publishers leaving the system.”
He also questioned the structure of the new body, which, as Lord Hunt outlined, would have two arms: one that deals with complaints and mediation, and another that audits and enforces standards and compliance with the editors’ code. “What is the view about concurrent legal proceedings and why should the complaints arm not be able to award compensation,” Leveson asked. “Is the new independent assessor an appeal mechanism and, if so, what will be done to prevent complaint fatigue and what has been said to be the grinding down of complainants by passage of time? What is meant by a serious or systemic breakdown in standards?”
The judge stressed his role would be to recommend what he perceived to be the “most effective and potentially enduring” system. “It will then be for others to decide how to proceed,” he said.
Leveson also responded to today’s call from the Hacked Off Campaign for the Operation Motorman database to be published. He said core participants’ barrister, David Sherbone was “at liberty” to formally submit the reuqest if he felt it were appropriate or may highlight a broader culture of press practices rather than “who did what to whom.”
Also today the Inquiry heard from Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Cressida Dick, and Sir Dennis O’Connor of HM Inspectorate of Constabulary.
Dick outlined her approach to relations with the media as not “obsessively monastic”, noting that she preferred to speak with journalists through the Met’s press office if a reporter was seeking information. She told the Inquiry she held monthly briefings with two to three journalists, which she said were “important to break down barriers”. Yet the meetings did not produce “a single scoop or really good story.”
“Certainly I wasn’t saying anything secret or exciting,” Dick said.
Questioned over the decision taken by then Assistant Commissioner John Yates not to re-open rhe phone hacking investigation in 2009 in light of reports by the Guardian was “not only poor, it was disastrous.”
Dick clarified that Sue Akers, the Met officer leading the current Operation Weeting investigation into hacking, was now working more widely under section one of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) in terms of potential lines of inquiry than during the original 2006 investigation.
“Public opinion in terms of these issues is in a very different place than [in] 2006 when we were completely dominated by the terrorist threat,” Dick added, reiterating the testimony of other Met staff.
O’Connor spoke in favour of a “common frame of reference” for police forces in dealing with the media, but on more than one occasion warned against constraining relations between them.
“The last thing I would do is restrain the relation between the police and the press,” he said. “That would defy reality.”
He said he hoped the Inquiry could help reinforce the legitimacy of the police.
The Inquiry continues tomorrow with the Met’s senior information officer, Sara Cheesley, and communications director, Dick Fedorcio.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
12 Mar 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Cross-posted at Hacked Off
There is an open secret at the Leveson Inquiry. The judge knows it; the lawyers all know it; the witnesses from the press — including the editors — all know it. In fact only one significant party is kept in the dark: the public in whose name the Inquiry acts.
And it’s not a small secret but a huge one, an entire database relating to illegal activity carried out at the behest of journalists working for national newspapers over a number of years. Occasionally it is mentioned in public evidence at the inquiry, almost always in vague and general terms. Yet there is nothing vague about it; it brims with detail.
It names journalists who commissioned thousands of actions which they must or should have known were, on the face of it, illegal. It records dates and payments for these transactions. It identifies the members of the public who were targets of this activity — thousands of them, although only a handful have been told it happened.
This secret has been secret too long, and the prevailing situation at the inquiry, of nudge-nudge-wink-wink exclusive knowledge, cannot be justified legally or morally. The only beneficiaries are journalists who have done wrong and their employers, and a public inquiry into press conduct has no business covering up wrongdoing by journalists.
It is time the Motorman files were made public. They should be redacted to protect the privacy of the victims but otherwise they should be published in their entirety and in a way that clearly shows which journalists commissioned what activities for which newspapers at what prices. Then let journalists and newspapers justify their actions if they can.
What are the Motorman files?
Motorman was an investigation by the Information Commissioner’s Office in 2003 into the activities of Steve Whittamore, a private investigator who for years ran a lucrative business providing press clients with addresses, phone numbers, car registrations and other information. Some of this information was legally available and some not: there is no legal way of acquiring records from the Police National Computer, the DVLA or BT’s ‘friends and family‘ database.
Though Whittamore and three associates were eventually convicted, no journalist or newspaper was prosecuted. That decision has been challenged and defended many times and the argument is now a barren one. There is no public interest today in prosecuting journalists for commissioning Whittamore and it will not happen; there is, however, a compelling public interest in the fullest possible disclosure of the files.
Yet when Hacked Off asked the Leveson Inquiry and the Information Commissioner’s Office to redact and publish them, they both said no.
In the past, the Information Commissioner has revealed that 305 journalists working for 32 publications generated 17,000 purchase orders with Whittamore in the years up to 2003. Many were innocent but several thousand involved prima facie breaches of the law.
Breaking the Data Protection Act can be justified if it is done in the public interest, to uncover wrongdoing, say, or to prevent crime. Some newspapers say their reporters acted for reasons of that kind but the Information Commissioner said most stories were so trivial they could never qualify as in the public interest. Either way, the newspapers’ sweeping claims that they did nothing illegal have never been tested.
Why now?
We need disclosure now, during the Leveson Inquiry, because otherwise the files will be buried forever. We need it because almost every national newspaper group is implicated and it is time they explained themselves, revealing their public interest justifications in detail where they have any. And we need it because it is inevitable that some of those 305 journalists are today in senior positions at national newspapers.
Above all we need disclosure because the Motorman files go to the heart of the Leveson mission, which is to examine the culture, practice and ethics of the press, and because it is wrong that information relating to wrongdoing is kept from the public when it has been shared between the lawyers and the implicated news organisations — as it definitely has been.
What are the arguments against publication? First, let us dispense with the weakest: that this database is so vast that redacting it for publication is too much work. Not so. The Information Commissioner’s Office itself has estimated that the job would take between 15 and 30 staff days.
Next is the argument that, because newspapers say they have stopped using Whittamore, Motorman is ancient history and thus irrelevant to the Inquiry. There is an inconsistency here: nobody publicly suggests that journalists are still hacking mobile phone voicemails and yet that is clearly relevant.
In fact, the cases of Steve Whittamore and the hacker Glenn Mulcaire are remarkably similar. Mulcaire was arrested in 2006 and it is clear he began hacking in 2002 or earlier — when Whittamore’s business was at its peak. Both investigators worked closely with newsdesks to penetrate the privacy of large numbers of people by illegal means. Yet Mulcaire’s journalist clients are subject to rigorous criminal investigation while the identity of Whittamore’s journalist clients is being officially protected.
It might be argued that to publish the full list of journalists’ names would unfairly lump the innocent in with the guilty. Reporters and editors who never did more than pay Whittamore to consult an open, public database will appear alongside those who asked him for people’s criminal records.
There may be embarrassment for some journalists, but remember there is no danger of prosecution here. What matters most, as with phone hacking, is that the scale and character of the scandal is fully understood and that today’s editors and news executives, some of whom have insisted that they and their papers never broke the law, should be subject to informed public scrutiny. This is very similar to the justification for publishing all of the data on MPs’ expenses, even though only a minority of MPs had broken the law.
Finally, while it is vital that victims’ identities should be redacted from the files (they should be identified only in classes, such as “a television presenter”, “a victim of crime”, “a police officer” etc) it is equally vital that victims should be informed of what happened. This process — which is a matter of right — is under way in the hacking scandal; it is even more overdue in the Motorman affair and should begin as soon as possible.
If you agree that the Motorman file should be redacted and published as a matter of priority, please write to the Leveson inquiry saying so. The address is: [email protected]. Please copy your email to the Information Commissioner’s Office: [email protected]
Brian Cathcart, a founder of Hacked Off, teaches journalism at Kingston University London. He tweets at @BrianCathcart
06 Feb 12 | Leveson Inquiry
Sue Akers, deputy assistant commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, told the Leveson Inquiry today that there are 6,349 potential victims of phone hacking identified in the evidence being investigated. This material included 11,000 pages of notes by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.
Akers added that the number of “likely victims” — those whose names featured other details that suggested they had been, or had the potential to be, hacked — was 829.
Of this figure, 581 have been contacted, 231 were “uncontactable” and 17 have not been contacted for operational reasons.
Bringing the Leveson Inquiry up to date with the status of Operation Elveden, which investigates payments to police officers, Akers said 40 officers were working on allegations of police corruption, but there were plans to expand that figure to 61 following the arrest of four journalists at the Sun on 28 January.
Akers said there was a “very legitimate” public interest in Elveden, which was launched last summer. “If the public think that information is being leaked by police officers to journalists, then it is inevitable that public confidence is eroded,” she said.
A total of 14 people have been arrested as part of the investigation, including four journalists. Akers said that the also police wanted to question a fifth unnamed journalist who is currently abroad.
She added that she was “less confident” about being closer to the end of Operation Elveden than she was about Operation Weeting, the investigation into phone hacking that is running in parallel with Elveden.
Akers agreed with Robert Jay QC that she was “nearer the finishing line than the starting gun” of Weeting. Ninety police are working on Operation Weeting, with 35 focused on dealing with victims.
A total of 17 people have been arrested — 15 are on bail and the remaining two have had no further action taken against them — while police have been going through 300 million emails recovered from News International in November, which Akers said was progressing at a “relatively advanced stage”.
Akers updated the Inquiry on a third investigation, Operation Tuleta, which is examining allegations of computer hacking conducted by newspapers. She said 20 officers were looking at 57 separate allegations of “data intrusion” dating as far back as the late 1980s.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
26 Jan 12 | Leveson Inquiry
The director of public policy (EMEA) at Facebook told the Leveson Inquiry today that regulating what people say on the social network would be akin to regulating what people say in the pub.
Richard Allan said it was “important” to distinguish editorial published content from “chatter on the internet”, noting that websites of papers such as the Guardian provide content, while Facebook provides distribution.
Questioned about the website’s oft-debated approach to privacy, Allan said that the purpose of the social network, to which over 50 per cent of Britons over 13 subscribe, is to allow people to connect and “share information with others”. He defended the network’s anti-anonymity policy, arguing using one’s real name made for a more “meaningful” experience.
He told the Inquiry that users should be able to speak freely on the website as long as they obey rules. He noted that the site has clauses on hate speech, pornography and harassment, adding that the “strongest protection” came from its 800 million-strong community of “neighbourhood watch” users.
Earlier today, representatives from Google urged the Inquiry to ensure a distinction between the publisher of content online and the host platform.
“Google is not the internet, and it is also not the only entry point to the internet,” the web giant’s head of corporate communications in the UK, David-John Collins, told the Inquiry. “Whatever robust system you recommend will have to cover all entry points.”
He emphasised that there was a “very essential balance online”, while Daphne Keller, the corporation’s legal chief who appeared alongside Collins today, warned against the “over-breadth” of regulating the internet.
Keller and Collins spoke at length about Google’s policy for removing content. They told the Inquiry that it has removed hundreds of URLs from its search function relating to the News of the World Max Mosley splash, but stressed that that does not mean the content disappears from the web.
Last November Mosley told the Inquiry that search engines were “dangerous”, as they could “stop a story appearing, but don’t or won’t as a matter of principle”. The former motorsports chief revealed he is currently taking litigation action in 22 countries, suing Google in France and Germany, and considering bringing proceedings against Google in California in an attempt to remove certain search results.
Keller said that defamatory material will usually be taken down within days, but if such content is defamatory under UK law it may still be visible for users via google.com, so long as it does not violate US law.
She said it would be impractical for Google to search out potentially defamatory content itself, and said it is “much better” for users if a judgment has been made by a court or legal process that has weighed the evidence.
Also appearing this afternoon was Camilla Wright, co-editor of celebrity news website Popbitch. “You can’t choose when you’re public and choose when you’re private,” Wright said of celebrities, adding that the website had apologised “five to six” times since it was founded.
The Inquiry will resume on Monday.
Follow Index on Censorship’s coverage of the Leveson Inquiry on Twitter – @IndexLeveson
